Editorial

When Practice becomes Policy
Doug Myers

Elections are in the news this week. News on the Region 12 Election winds down with a poignant wish by Darrell Salter, the newly elected Regional Coordinator there. The election in Region 13 kicks off with the posting of an election schedule by David Califranceso, the newly elected Election Coordinator there. The R13 election was actually scheduled earlier this year, and nominations made, but the region decided to defer the election until after the Z1C election since David Moufarrege was a prime candidate in both elections.

In the Region 13 Sysop echo, there's an interesting thread between Carol Shenkenberger (Acting RC13) and Bob Morasvik (noted Fidonet "Bad Boy"). Carol refers to the Region 13 Election Guidelines as a regional policy, and Bob takes exception to the term "policy" in this context. Bob maintains that a policy, such as Fidonet Policy 4.07, is something enforceable; something which the sysops cannot simply ignore. He further maintains that no RC election policy is possible under P 4.07 because the position of RC is specifically spelled out as an appointment by the Zone Coordinator. Under P 4.97, the Zone Coordinator could simply ignore the vote within a region and appoint whomever he pleases.

Carol points out that Bob's criteria of unenforceability is unlikely to have practical impact because David Moufarrege is a known proponent of elections in Fidonet, and is unlikely to reject an elected candidate. It doesn't matter, argues Bob. The fact that the "local" policy cannot bind the ZC invalidates it as a policy. Elections throughout Fidonet are little more than straw polls, and the "policies" defining them are little more than wish lists.

As a tribute to his debating skills, Bob has a point. But I wonder if, in making it he hasn't sealed the fate of all policy. Could the ZC refuse an elected candidate from a region where elections have become a tradition? Certainly printed policy says he can do this, but could he actually do this in practice? Would the reaction of the sysops in Fidonet be sufficiently strong to enforce the application of tradition? Could a ZC effectively withstand such a reaction? If not, then the written policy becomes unenforceable, and by Bob's definition, P 4.07 ceases to exist as policy. It may be that we're already at this point since David actively supports elections and will not (in my opinion) reject the outcome of an election.

At what point does practice become policy? At what point does written policy become invalid, and cease to exist as policy?